Re: [PATCH 01/16] PM / OPP: Add 'supply-names' binding

[Viresh Kumar]

On 15-10-15, 17:22, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> I'm lost why we need this property at all. What happened to using
> 
>  opp-microvolt-0 = <1 2 3>;
>  opp-microvolt-1 = <1>;
>  opp-microvolt-2 = <3 4 5>;
>  etc.

Perhaps you are confusing this with the bindings we came up for
picking right voltage levels based on the cuts/version of the hardware
we are running on. The problem that Lee Jones mentioned and that can
be used in your case as well.

> That seems to avoid any problem with 3 vs. 1 element properties
> combined into one large array.

That's not the problem I was trying to solve here.

> Having supply-names seems too
> brittle and would tie us to a particular OPP user's decision to
> call supplies by some name.

No. The name has to match the <name>-supply property present in the
device's node, that's why we need this property :)

> Also, I've seen devices that are split across two power domains.
> These devices aren't CPUs, but they are other devices including
> L2 caches. So we're going to need either multiple regulator
> support or multiple "power domain at a particular performance
> levels" support somehow.

Right, that's a good example of why we need multi-regulator support :)

-- 
viresh
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/